White Paper

“Office of Strategy Management”

Closing the gap between strategy
formulation and implementation
Dr. Tim Wolf
Denis Muratcehajic

2016

[Link]
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

Strategy implementation as key factor for *Value is based on the percentage of employees who asses their firm’s implementation strength as weak

corporate success Kaplan

Raps & Norton
(2004) (2005)
Franken
The challenge: Strategy implementation 90%
Mankins & Steele Neilson et al.
et al.
(2009)
The
Economist
Perlman
(2014)
(2005) (2008) (2013)

In a competitive environment molded by accelerated tech- 90%

nological change, increasing global competition and volatile 60% 60%*
70%
61%
70%

markets, the quality of strategy work is decisive factor for long-

term corporate success. Successful strategy work is based on 2004 2005 2008 2009 2013 2014

two dimensions: the strength of concept of the business model

Fig. 2: Failure rates in strategy implementation
(“Be different”) and the strength of implementation to achieve
strategic goals (“Be better”).
Given that the ability to – quickly and effectively – implement
strategies has a major impact upon the long-term success of
Lucky Guys Market Masters
companies, this is reason enough to investigate the causes for
the failure of strategy implementation and to identify poten-
High
tial solutions [cf. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2013); Raps
“Be Different” (2008)].
Strength of concept
of business model Causes for the failure of strategy implementation
Different studies have already investigated strategy implemen-
Low
tation in companies (selected studies from 2004-2014 are lis-
Losers Gladiators ted in this paper’s sources). A cross-section analysis of these
studies shows that both external and internal factors influ-
Gering Hoch
ence the quality of strategy implementation.
“Be Better”
Strength of implementation To investigate the internal factors, we have drawn upon the
to achieve strategic goals findings of 12 studies and specialist articles [including our
Strategy Study (2013/14) and the brief study Office of Stra-
Fig. 1: The two dimensions of successful strategy work tegy Management (2015)]. All the publications show similar
reasons for the failure of strategy implementation. There are
The business models of above-averagely successful companies ten factors which are responsible for the breakdown between
(“market masters”) consist not only of strength of concept but strategy formulation and implementation:
also a high degree of implementation skills which enable them ■■ Poor coordination of processes relevant to the strategy:
to fully unleash the power of their strategy. In a market environ- The smooth execution of the main processes needed for
ment where the strategies of competitors are often very similar strategy work (including strategy development, strategy
[cf. Horváth & Partners (2014)] it is successful implementation operationalization, strategic planning, budgeting, resour-
work which makes one company stand out from the rest. ces management, initiatives management, performance
Once believed by many, the idea that “good” strategies pretty reporting) cannot be guaranteed.
much implement themselves has proved itself false [cf. Raps ■■ Insufficient attention from top management: Der Ma-
(2008)]. Indeed, reality has shown there is considerable need nagement executives do not dedicate sufficient time and
for development when it comes to the ability of companies attention to strategy work.
to implement their strategies [cf. Raps (2008)]: nine out of ■■ Weak strategy communication: The employees do not
ten top decision-makers definitively state that the successful know or understand the strategy, resulting in a lack of ori-
implementation of strategies has a decisive impact upon the entation.
future competitiveness of the company [cf. The Economist In-
■■ Resource management not aligned with strategy: Finan-
telligence Unit (2013); Wunderer & Bruch (2000)].
cial and staffing resources do not reflect the strategy and
The findings from renowned studies also show that between are often insufficient for the implementation of projects.
60 and 90 percent of companies are dissatisfied with their own
strategy implementation.

3
© Horváth & Partners 2016
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

■■ Poor monitoring of strategic performance: There is no The fact is that these and other factors listed in the studies
strategy-based selection of performance indicators nor are create additional challenges for strategy work on top of the
these discussed regularly or their performance monitored. internal aspects. As a result, strategy functions are exposed to
■■ Inadequate incentive systems for strategy implementa- a wide range of new internal and external challenges which
tion: Employee behavior is not managed in line with strat- impact upon both dimensions of strategy work, concept design
egy. This means that any motivation potentials for reaching and implementation.
strategy goals are not fully leveraged. At the same time, we see that strategy work has developed
■■ Organizational structures out of synch with strategy: enormously in the last decades. It is now an established func-
There is a lack of support from and for the organizational tion in most companies and no longer merely a “secret” sidebar
structures as they have not been changed to fit the new for top management to resolve pragmatically. Experts in strat-
strategy. egy functions serve as “conceptual think tanks”, look after the
■■ Unclear allocation of roles and responsibilities: Strategy strategy process and relieve at least some of the burden upon
implementation has not been broken down into concrete management executives. Having said that, only a few strategy
responsibility levels. This means there is no basis for the ne- functions have sufficient capacity, processes and experience to
cessary coordination, especially for cross-functional targets. actively supervise strategy implementation.
■■ Poor and inconsistent transition from strategy to opera- Thus, a new approach for strategy work is required to ensure
tive planning: The strategy has not been strictly transferred that the organization and implementation of strategies is more
into operative budgets. Thus, there is a risk that functions successful in the future.
and departments will base their budgets on the previous
year and carry on with “business as usual” without imple- Strategy implementation with the Office of
menting the required changes. Strategy Management
■■ Inadequate leadership guidelines: Strategy work is the re-

sponsibility of the management. If management executives Core idea underlying the Office of Strategy Management
on all levels fail to act as role models, the whole company’s (OSM)
performance will suffer. Without strategy-aware manage-
ment executives, even the best strategy will fail to yield We at Horváth & Partners see the OSM is an organizational
results. unit which supports the management in every task relating to
the concept design and implementation of strategies. In doing
A look at the external factors influencing strategy work also so, the OSM views the organization as a whole and becomes ac-
reveals a highly dynamic and challenging environment, one tively involved in the design of structures, processes and perfor-
which we described as part of our Strategy Study (2013/14) mance management systems to ensure they all conform with
and the brief study Office of Strategy Management (2015): the company’s strategies. Thus, the remit of the OSM goes far
■■ Volatile markets: Unforeseeable market developments beyond that of the “classical” strategy departments.
make it difficult to plan how to reach targets. At the same
Focus of Strategy Work without OSM Focus of Strategy Work with OSM
time, strategies must be capable of offering added value
in volatile markets and not mutate into a corset-like hin- Top Management Strategy Top Management
drance.
Limited
■■ Technological change: “Old” business models suddenly Strategy Function Support

find themselves challenged by new Internet-based ones. Gap

Office of
Strategy Management
New technological possibilities such as dealing with energy,
digitization, communication or the transfer of information Implementation

lead to rapid change and upheaval. Concept Design Aspects Concept Design + Implementation-
of Strategy Work based Strategy Work
■■ Changing competitive landscape: Heightened global
competition or the sudden appearance of new, financially Fig. 3: A comparison of the focus of strategy work without and with the Office of
strong competitors leads to new business models. Strategy Management

■■ Data as a resource (Big Data): Data is becoming a

resource in its own right. Ensuring access to data and its
intelligent use are creating wholly new challenges for stra-
tegists.

4
© Horváth & Partners 2016
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

The OSM designs, manages and monitors the strategy process

from analysis through to implementation on all levels, thereby Process Landscape without OSM Process Landscape with OSM

linking strategy design with strategy implementation. To do BSC

Mgmt.

so, the OSM takes over responsibility for the core processes Strategy
Strategy
Development Strategic

and the derived processes. For the third category of processes, Development Resources
Strategic Mgmt.
BSC
Planning Mgmt.
the OSM coordinates the activities and ensures they remain in Perfor-

synch with the strategy. This integrated process model ensures

mance
Strat. Strat. Reporting
Initiatives Initiatives Strategic
Budget-
there is a link between strategy work and operations (see Fig.
Strategy
Mgmt. Mgmt. Planning
Communi-
cation
ing

4). The “process house” acts as a basic framework for individual Strategy
Perfor-
customization and expansion depending on the specific needs Strat.
mance
Reporting
Budgeting
Communi-
cation

of the company. Project

Mgmt.
Resources
Mgmt.
Project
Mgmt.

Office of Strategy Management

Fig. 6: Integration of the processes by the OSM

Core Processes Derived Processes Coordinated Prozesse

The most common cause of failure in strategy implementation
Strategy Development Strategic Planning
Mid-term Planning
and Budgeting
is the poor coordination of processes. The highly dynamic mar-
Strategy Operationalization
ket environment requires the strategic orientation to be adjus-
(Balanced Scorecard
Performance Reporting &
Review
Strategy Communication ted on a regular basis, thus raising the added value of this
Management)
process integration considerably. This is because process integ-
Strategic Initiatives Strategic Resources
Management Management
Project Management
ration not only enables strategy modifications to develop their
fullest potential but also to do so in a very short time. Rapid
Fig. 4: Service processes of the Office of Strategy Management reactions to unexpected developments in the market and com-
petitive environment take effect far more quickly and possible
The special features of an Office of Strategy Management com- negative impacts are ameliorated. Moreover, one positive and
pared with “classical” strategy functions can be described in not insignificant side effect of introducing an OSM is that the
four dimensions. strategy process is tightened up by the elimination of redun-
dancies, which in turn raises efficiency. While at first glance the
necessity for discipline in process design and execution might

??
seem to be a disadvantage as there must be strict compliance
with the defined milestones by all involved parties to ensure
Strategy
the overall process actually works, the ends justify the means.
Processes:
Functions Completely interconnected Organization: Transformation and coordination of the
Organization:
Managers as Capacity and competence functions
Strategists Data: From the perspective of the organizational structure an OSM
Strategic and operative
management information brings about two major changes. First, the existing organizati-
People: onal structure of the entire company must be subject to critical
Leadership change and
qualification scrutiny against the background of the new strategy and, if
necessary, modified. The OSM initiates this process and ensures
Fig. 5: Development stages in strategy work the required transformation is sustainable.
Second, it is important to remember that there are a great
Processes: Integration and interconnectedness number of functions and departments involved in the OSM pro-
Strategy-relevant processes are completely linked together to cesses and their associated tasks. The basic principle underpin-
form an end-to-end process. In this way, the process house ning the OSM is that it has full responsibility for coordinating
adheres to the principle of a clock’s mechanism in which the these processes. This means it manages the contributions from
processes relevant to the strategy are interconnected to one other functions within the processes, ensures the interfaces
another by means of logical process sequences, interfaces and are all clear and working and it has overall responsibility for
practical tools and templates thereby ensuring that each and the entire strategy process. Even if some tasks such as strate-
every impulse automatically leads to follow-up activities and gic planning, BSC management or budgeting are carried out
subsequent effects. in different organization units and/ or on different hierarchy

5
© Horváth & Partners 2016
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

levels, these processes run smoothly within a harmonized pro- People: Strategic management competence
cess model. This facilitates cooperation and coordination bet- The findings of our Strategy Study 2013/14 and from our ana-
ween units. The organizational structures no longer hinder or lysis of the most common hurdles in strategy implementation
block strategy implementation. prove: Managers spend too little time on strategy work. In our
The added value behind the Office of Strategy Management opinion, there are two main reasons for this: first, operative
(OSM) lies in the coordination of these central functions for priorities arising from the pressures in the daily business and,
strategy work under the umbrella of the OSM (cf. Fig. 7). The second, reluctance due to the effort and the complexity of stra-
OSM is structured here in four core functions: OSM Process Mo- tegy work.
del (entire), Strategy and Planning, Strategy Anchoring, and Managers should and must, to a great extent, be able to make
Strategic Initiatives. Sufficient capacities and competences their own decisions on priorities in their function. However,
must be built up within the OSM in order to be able to execute shared leadership principles can be defined and further deve-
the defined processes properly. loped together, and in the final analysis these must be lived
Data: Automated availability of strategic and operative top-down. Only when managers can see the added value of
management information strategic management for themselves and for the company can
a change in behavior be brought about. Thus, a set of general
A further advantage can be found in the standardization of
principles which are developed by those affected is an absolu-
the strategic performance monitoring processes. Automation
tely vital basis for a broad-based qualification program which
and the use of technologies allow us to make strategic and
combines strategic thinking and action with the daily work in
operative management information available while at the
the whole company [cf. Horváth & Partners (2014)].
same time reducing workload considerably. The use of business
intelligence solutions enhances the quality and efficiency of At the same time, however, strategy work must also become
performance reporting significantly. Where before numerous easier and more effective for managers. Endless hours spent
different data sources, data standards, contact persons or ana- debating terms and minutiae place the effects for the company
lysis methods made consolidating and preparing the data a in a questionable light. Also, the real work of strategic ma-
tiresome, manual process, the new systems deliver fast and reli- nagement doesn’t start until after the strategy has been defi-
able solutions for reporting. Thus, dashboards and reports can ned. If merely collecting the information for a quarterly strat-
be accessed directly via numerous online and offline channels, egy implementation review is an onerous and strenuous task,
allowing us to initiate any necessary countermeasures imme- the resulting strategy document is often simply stuck back in
diately. the drawer and ignored. “Classical” strategy functions which
already shoulder some of the management’s workload in these

Isolated Functional Units without OSM Coordination of Functions with OSM

Corporate Level Relevant for Strategy Work Corporate Level

Job
CEO (staff) Profiles
OSM

Head of OSM

Functional Level OSM

Strategy and Strategy Strategic
Process
Planning Anchoring Initiatives
Sales Model
Strategy
Strategy
Strategic
Strategy operational-
Initiatives
Development ization (BSC
Management
Management)
… Communication Entire
Process Performance Strategic
Strategic
Reporting & Resources
House Planning
Review Management
Controlling
 Concept
 Moderation
Finance Mid-term Strategy
 Control Project
Planning/ Communi- Management
Budgeting cation

Fig. 7: Integration of the functions within the OSM

6
© Horváth & Partners 2016
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

areas tend to focus mainly on support in concept design, while Value-added of the OSM
it is rare to find capacities allocated to supporting strategic
The OSM makes a decisive contribution both for the concept
management.
design aspect of strategy work (“be different”) and for the
The added value of the OSM lies in the fact that it goes far strength in implementation (“be better”) in a company, thereby
beyond the remit of “classical” strategy functions in both stra- laying the foundation for sustainably improving the company’s
tegic and operative strategy work and takes on responsibility bottom line. Changes are not only initiated but also implemen-
for important operative strategy tasks from the management. ted sustainably. A key aspect here is the interconnected and
In this context, for example, it monitors the progress of strate- holistic process model.
gic initiatives and drives target achievement. Additionally, top
management meetings are provided with updates on the state No
Strategy Function
Strategy Function
(no OSM)
Office of Strategy
Management (OSM)

of strategy implementation. Thus, strategy becomes a central Coordination of individual processes

relevant to strategy
low low high
Top management commitment (workload
element of the agenda on a regular basis. The benefit here lies relief for operative strategy work) low average very high

Strategy communication sporadic mixed consistent

in closing the gap between operative and strategic strategy Budgeting/strategic
low low guaranteed
work and in relieving the burden of top management, thereby resource management
Strategic performance monitoring low seldom successful institutionalized
allowing them more time for making important strategic decis- Incentive system (linked to
implementation of strategic initiatives)
in part no responsibility guaranteed

ions. Once they see these new benefits, it is easier to convince Alignment of organizational
structures with strategy
low no responsibility guaranteed

managers of the added value of strategic management. Allocation of responsibilities low case-dependent institutionalized
Transition from strategic very low low fully integrated
to operative planning
In general, our experience shows that the introduction of an Leadership guidelines none seldom anchored

Office of Strategy Management results in change across the Focus Pragmatism Concept Design Holistic Performance
entire company. As a result, topics such as communication and Management

enablement are especially important. Both aspects are seen Fig 8: Comparison of the different approaches in strategy work
as cornerstones of the long-term success of strategy work and
involve the continuous development of leadership skills. This A direct comparison to existing forms of strategy work provides
ensures that the ability to implement strategies is not only a particularly clear picture of the differences (see Fig. 8). While
in place at the time of introduction but is also continuously companies which do not have their own strategy function must
further professionalized. perforce fall back on pragmatic approaches, the focus of “clas-
sical” strategy functions lies on resolving conceptual issues in
strategy work. In contrast, the OSM allows companies to pursue
a holistic, comprehensive approach to strategy management.

Top management Leadership

c ommitment guidelines

Alignment of
Strategy Office of
organizational
communication Strategy structures
Management
Alignment of
Allocation of
strategy relevant
responsibilities
processes

Transition from
Incentive
strategic to opera-
systems
tional planning

Budgeting/ Strategic
strategic resource performance
management reporting

Fig. 9: Contributions of the Office of Strategy Management to overcoming hurdles in strategy implementation

7
© Horváth & Partners 2016
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

The added value of an OSM lies in its contribution to over- ■■ Monitoring strategic performance: The progress of stra-
coming barriers and hurdles in strategy implementation (see tegy implementation is measured based on the defined
Fig. 9): goals, key performance indicators and initiatives. Review
milestones are defined throughout the year to ensure that
■■ Commitment from top management: The OSM reduces
top management knows at all times where the company is
the workload for top management significantly. This me-
along the implementation path and which countermeasu-
ans considerably more attention can be paid to strategy
res need to be initiated if there are any deviations. Effective
implementation.
strategy management is established.
■■ Strategy communication: The OSM ensures consistent and
tailored communication of the strategy to all employees
(incl. feedback). The employees have a better understan- The Horváth & Partners approach for introdu-
ding of the strategy and know what they have to do. cing the Office of Strategy Management (OSM)
■■ Coordination of processes relevant to the strategy:
Individual processes which are relevant to the strategy The OSM Target Operating Model
(strategic planning, strategy implementation, budgeting,
Based on our years of practical experience, we have developed
performance reporting, strategic resources management,
a holistic operating model for the Office of Strategy Manage-
strategic initiatives management etc.) are linked together
ment – the OSM Target Operating Model (TOM).
by the OSM.
■■ Transition from strategy to operative planning: The com- The four dimensions of the OSM Target Operating Model (TOM)
plete integration of all process levels by the OSM ensures comprise the design aspects for the operating model. They en-
there is a seamless transition from strategic to operative sure that the best-possible cornerstones are laid down for the
planning and the content is interconnected. successful introduction of the OSM. They are the mission and
guiding principles, organization and governance, processes
■■ Budgeting/strategic resource management: The consis-
and instruments, and leadership and change.
tent operationalization of the strategy and the close links
to strategic initiatives management, strategic resources ma-
OSM
nagement and strategic planning ensures strategy-based Office of Strategy Management

budgeting. This means that sufficient financial and staffing Conceptual Dimensions

resources are available at all times for implementing the

planned strategic initiatives. Mission and
Guiding Principles
Organization and
Governance
■■ Leadership guidelines in management: The OSM anchors Target
Operating
strategic leadership and establishes strategic thinking and Model
(TOM)
action in the daily work across the entire company.
Processes Leadership
■■ Organizational structures which conform with strategy: and Instruments and Change

The OSM ensures that the organizational structure supports

the strategy, thereby fostering sustainable transformation.
Fig 10: The four dimensions of the OSM Target Operating Model
■■ Clear allocation of roles and responsibilities: Consistent
cascading of the strategy ensures the roles and responsibi- Mission and guiding principles
lities in strategy implementation are clarified and clearly The OSM mission summarizes the main tasks of this organizati-
allocated. The alignment principle ensures shared goals are onal unit for the company.
reached across all functions.
■■ Incentive systems for implementing strategic goals/ The guiding principles provide further details for implementing
initiatives: Based on the cascading strategy, personal goals the mission. This includes defining competences, identifying
are aligned seamlessly with the strategy. the OSM’s customers, and clarifying which services the OSM
will provide to those customer groups. What is laid down here
forms the basis for discussions and coordination with all the
stakeholders and serves as a reference for the subsequent de-
velopment of the OSM in the company:

8
© Horváth & Partners 2016
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

■■ Which services should the OSM provide? Processes and instruments

■■ Which role should the OSM fulfil within the organization? When designing the Office of Strategy Management TOM it
■■ Which competences does the OSM need to be at its most is important to integrate and interconnect the processes with
effective? strategy relevance optimally with one another in order to crea-
■■ Which areas within the company will the OSM have the te a holistic end-to-end process from strategy development
greatest influence on? through to strategy implementation on all levels. To do this, it
is necessary to define all the process levels as this is the only
■■ Who are the main cooperation partners of the OSM?
way to ensure the process really is end-to-end.
Organization and governance
Process Level Process Example (excerpt) Tools

The organizational structure and positioning of the OSM must Strategy -

Level 1 Operationalization
be clarified on a number of levels depending on the company’s (BSC management)

constellation: corporate level, divisional level and within the Updating the
“OSM” function. This is done using classical instruments: orga- Level 2
company -BSC Cascading /
Coordination

nizational structure and job profiles.

The governance guidelines formally regulate the competences Revising the strategy map
(strategic goals) Horváth & Partners
Level 3
of the function and its employees. state - of- the - art
set of
Carrying out top management tools & templates
interviews
Consolidating the findings of the
Job Level 4 strategic analysis
OSM Profiles …

Head of OSM
Fig. 12: Breakdown of process levels within the OSM
OSM Process Strategy and Strategy Strategic
Model Planning Anchoring Initiatives On Level 1 we differentiate between the following processes:
core processes, derived processes and coordinated processes.
Strategic
Strategy Strategy Opera-
Initiatives These three process categories are then broken down to Level 3
Development tionalization
Management (sub-processes). Level 4 describes the activity level, which con-
Entire
Strategic
Performance Strategic tains activities which use instruments and templates to contri-
Process House Reporting & Resources bute to target achievement on the operative level. An example
Planning
Review Management
 Concept of an activity is the creation of a SWOT analysis. In total, the
Mid-term
 Moderation
Planning/
Strategy Project standard reference model consists of approx. 400 activities,
Communication Management
 Control Budgeting making the process model both holistic and detailed down to
the work level. Level 4 of the process model regulates responsi-
Fig. 11: Consolidation of the functions with strategy relevance in the OSM bilities, for example by means of a RACI matrix.
Leadership and change
The internal OSM structure bundles together and organizes
the activities defined for the OSM based on competences. The The revised leadership guidelines serve to strengthen the
bundles are structured in four areas of responsibility: OSM Pro- strategic leadership. They provide managers with orientation
cess Model, Strategy & Planning, Strategy Anchoring, and Stra- about expectations regarding their role in the strategic leader-
tegic Initiatives. Each of these functions is responsible for both ship of the company.
concept design and operative implementation of the respective
Six components should be included:
processes (see Fig. 11). The goals, tasks, competences and du-
ties of the individual positions within the areas of responsi- ■■ Goals: Development of a clear strategy with clear strategic
bility are described in job profiles. This creates a transparent goals
and comprehensive order for the responsibilities without any ■■ Measures: Precise translation of the strategic goals into
overlaps, maps out career paths and integrates the individual measures
positions into the organization.
■■ Resources: Provision of the resources required for those
measures (FTEs, finance, infrastructure etc.)

9
© Horváth & Partners 2016
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

■■ Skills: Ensuring the required qualifications and competen- Horváth & Partners
Share
ces
Standards
■■ Incentives: Motivation, evaluation of success and incen-
tives to manage behavior Work -
shops
Qualification
Program with
■■ Information: Communication of goals, measures and tasks Enablement OSM Certification

as well as ensuring that the “big picture” is clear Training

Work
Shadowing
Roadmap for introducing the OSM
Internal Share
The approach for introducing an OSM is always tailored to the (by OSM)

specific company’s situation. Our project experience has shown Time

that the following overarching roadmap works.

Fig. 14: Our OSM qualification program for transfer and enablement

Time

Health Check Successful strategy implementation with the

OSM – Summary
Concept Design Basic Setup Detailing

Run and
Preparation Run and Roll- out
The Office of Strategy Management (OSM) is an opportunity
Roll- out
for companies to set up a new organizational unit which not
Handover Horváth & Partners
Internal Share (OSM)
only improves strategy implementation but also turns it into
a core strength of the company. This increases not only the
Enablement long-term competitiveness of the company but is also proven
to result in an improved bottom line.
Fig. 13: Roadmap for introducing the OSM Precisely how the competitiveness of the company is increased
can be summarized in three basic benefits:
The introduction consists of five sub-processes which, apart
from the initial health check, run almost parallel to one ano- ■■ “React right”: Create a system of corporate performance
ther. They start with the health check and end with the final management which focuses on the market and the com-
handover to the client: petition
■■ “React quickly“: Improve the ability of the organization to
■■ Health check: Analysis of the current situation (processes, manage performance (business model and strategy)
organizational structure etc.)
■■ “Cut costs”: Increase the efficiency of the performance ma-
■■ Concept design for the operating model: Basic concept nagement processes by interconnectedness, standardizati-
design and detailed modification of the four design dimen- on and automation
sions (Mission and Guiding Principles, Organization and
Governance, Processes and Tools, Leadership and Change) While introducing an Office of Strategy Management is indeed
■■ Run und Roll-out: Initial go-live and continuous optimiza- very challenging, it is most definitely a rewarding undertaking.
tion
■■ Handover: Continuous increase in the client’s share of the
strategy work
■■ Enabling: Continuous qualification of employees (training
courses, workshops, work shadowing, etc.
One particular focus of introducing the OSM lies on staff trai-
ning and qualification (see Fig. 14). This is how we ensure that
all the pieces are in place for the long-term success of the OSM
when it is handed over to the client. We do this by working
together with renowned elite universities which offer an OSM
certification at the end of the program.

10
© Horváth & Partners 2016
White Paper: “Office of Strategy Management”

References

Hanley Jr., C. A. (2007). The Execution Challenge: Translating

Strategy into Action. Bank Accounting & Finance, 20(6), 17-20.
Higgins, J. M. (2005). The Eight ‘S’s of Successful Strategy Exe-
cution. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 3-13.
Horváth & Partners (2015). OSM-Studie: Office of Strategy Ma-
nagement in Practice. (D. Muratcehajic, Interviewer).
Horváth & Partners (2014). Strategiestudie 2013/14: 12
Schlüssel erfolgreicher Strategiearbeit. URL: [Link]
[Link]/de/publikationen/studien/detail/publi-
cation/strategiestudie-20132014-12-schluessel-erfolgreicher-
strategiearbeit/.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2005). Business Strategy: Execution Is the Key.
In L. G. Hrebiniak, Making Strategy Work: Leading Effective Exe-
cution and Change (pp. 1-29). New Jersey: Pearson FT Press.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2005). The Office of Strategy
Management. Harvard Business Review - October 2005, 72-80.
Martin, R. L. (2010). The Execution Trap. Harvard Business Re-
view, 89(7), 64-71.
Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2005, Jul/Aug2005). Turning
Great Strategy into Great Performance. Harvard Business Re-
view, 83(7/8), 64-72.
Morgan, M., Malek, W., & Levitt, R. E. (2008). Executing Your
Strategy - How to Break It Down and Get It Done. Boston: Har-
vard Business Review Press.
Neilson, G. L., Martin, K. L., & Powers, E. (2008, Jun2008). The
Secrets to Successful Strategy Execution. Harvard Business Re-
view, 86(6), 60-70.
Raps, A. (2008). Erfolgsfaktoren der Strategieimplementierung
- Konzeption, Instrumente und Fallbeispiele (3rd ed.). Wiesba-
den: Gabler Verlag.
The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. (2013). Why good
strategies fail: Lessons for the C-suite. The Economist: Intelli-
gence Unit, 1-26.

11
© Horváth & Partners 2016
Imprint/Contact

Editor
Horváth & Partner GmbH
Phoenixbau | Königstraße 5
70173 Stuttgart

Tel.: +49 711 66919-0

info@[Link]

Horváth & Partners – Management Consultants

Horváth & Partners are independent, international management Our core competences lie in the fields of Corporate Performance
consultants with over 600 highly qualified employees. Founded Management and Performance Optimization – both for the entire
in 1981 and headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, we have of- company and for the business and functional areas of Strategy,
fices at locations in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Saudi Innovation, Organization, Sales, Operations, Controlling, Finance
Arabia, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates. Moreover, Hor- and IT. Horváth & Partners stand for project results which crea-
váth & Partners are a proud member of the Cordence Worldwide te sustainable benefit, which is why we accompany our clients
global management consulting partnership, which strengthens through the entire process from developing the business concept
our ability to undertake consulting projects in important econo- through to anchoring via integration into processes and systems.
mic regions of the world with the highest professional expertise
and precise knowledge of local circumstances.

Dr. Tim Wolf

Competence Center
Strategy, Innovation & Sales
Head of Strategy

TWolf@[Link]

Denis Muratcehajic
Competence Center
Strategy, Innovation & Sales

DMuratcehajic@[Link]